SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 709

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.V. GANGAPURWALA, SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
Maharashtra Public Service Commission - Petitioner
Versus
Miss. Ruchita Vasant Somane (after marriage) and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 9845 Of 2019 Alongwith Interim Application No. 4129 Of 2019 Alongwith Interim Application No. 2563 Of 2019 Alongwith Interim Application No. 3141 Of 2023
Decided On : 02-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni a/w. Mr. Sarthak S. Diwan, a/w. Mr. Akshay R. Kulkarni.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep G. Rane, Mr. B.V. Samant.

The employer has the right to prescribe qualifications suitable for the post, and the court cannot go into the issue of correctness of qualifications prescribed.

Headnote:

MPSC - Eligibility Criteria for Secretary (Group-A) Post - Rule 3 - [Rule 3 of the Maharashtra State Board of Production of Marathi Vishwakosh Recruitment Rules, 2016] - The court held that possession of both Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees in Marathi/Sanskrit is mandatory as per the Recruitment Rules and the advertisement. The Tribunal erred in determining equivalence of qualifications without challenge to the Recruitment Rules. The employer has the right to prescribe qualifications suitable for the post, and the court cannot go into the issue of correctness of qualifications prescribed. The judgment and order of the Tribunal were set aside.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a petition filed by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) challenging the judgment and order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in Original Application No. 651/2018. The Tribunal had allowed the Original Application, holding the respondent eligible for appointment to the post of Secretary (Group-A) in the Maharashtra State Board of Production of Marathi Vishwakosh, despite lacking the qualification of Bachelor’s Degree in Sanskrit.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Tribunal erred in determining equivalence of qualifications without challenge to the Recruitment Rules. It held that possession of both Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees in Marathi/Sanskrit is mandatory as per the Recruitment Rules and the advertisement. The court also emphasized the employer's right to prescribe qualifications suitable for the post and the limitation of the court in questioning the correctness of qualifications prescribed.

Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent was eligible for appointment to the advertised post despite lacking the qualification of Bachelor’s Degree in Sanskrit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Rule 3 of the Maharashtra State Board of Production of Marathi Vishwakosh Recruitment Rules, 2016, and the advertisement issued by MPSC. It emphasized the employer's right to prescribe qualifications suitable for the post and the limitation of the court in questioning the correctness of qualifications prescribed.

Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment and order of the Tribunal, holding that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal were indefensible.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep V. Marne, J.)

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) has filed the present petition challenging the judgment and order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in Original Application No. 651/2018. The Original Application was instituted by respondent no.1 challenging the advertisement dated 29.04.2017 issued by the MPSC for filling up the post of Secretary (Group-A) in the Maharashtra State Board of Production of Marathi Vishwakosh. The advertisement was challenged to the extent of prescription of qualification of bachelor’s degree in Marathi or Sanskrit and seeking declaration that candidates possessing qualification of Master’s Degree in Sanskrit should be held eligible. By judgment and order dated 20.02.2019, the Tribunal has proceeded to allow the Original Application holding that respondent no.1 fulfilled the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement. Her candidature has been directed to be considered in the selection process. The Tribunal has held that the Change of Faculty Test undergone by her for securing admission to the course of Masters Degree in Sanskrit to be equivalent to Bachelor’s Degree in Sanskrit.

3. The petitioner underwent course of Bachelor’s Degree in Science (Micro-Biology) in April, 1993. She also acquired Master’s Degree in Bio-Chemistry in May, 1995. She later obtained Diploma Certificate in Sanskrit in May, 1999. She also acquired qualification of B.Ed in March, 2000.

4. The Mumbai University provided an opportunity to graduates from other than Arts to seek admission to course of master’s degree in arts. Petitioner was interested in undergoing the master’s degree in Sanskrit and accordingly appeared for Change of Faculty Test (Entrance Test) containing two papers of Sanskrit. After clearing the Change of Faculty Test, she secured admission to M.A. Degree Course in Sanskrit. She acquired M.A. degree in Sanskrit in the year 2003. Later she completed her post-graduation- M. Phil in Education in the year 2012.

5. An advertisement was issued by MPSC for filling up the post of Secretary (Group-A) in the Maharashtra State Board of Production of Marathi Vishwakosh under the Marathi Language Department. The educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement was (i)possession of degree in Marathi or Sanskrit subject with at least 55% marks and (ii)possession of Master’s degree in Marathi or Sanskrit subject with at least 55% marks. Experience of working in administrative or executive post for five years was also prescribed. Petitioner applied in pursuance of the advertisement. MPSC published list of eligible candidates, in which name of respondent no.1 figured at serial no.2. She was subjected to interview held on 6.02.2018. During the course of interview, oral enquiry was made as to whether respondent no.1 possessed the qualification of Bachelor’s Degree in Sankrit. Respondent no.1 gave information in writing on 6.02.2018 about non-possession of Bachelor’s Degree in Sanskrit but stated that she passed Entrance Test in Sanskrit subject held by Mumbai University for securing admission to Course of M.A. (Sanskrit). The interview of respondent no.1 was accordingly conducted. She claims to have secured highest marks in the interview and was looking forward to her selection and appointment on the advertised post. However, since nothing was herd in the matter, she made representation dated 16.02.2018. Merit list was published by MPSC in which name of respondent no.1 was excluded.

6. Respondent no.1 therefore filed O.A. No. 651/2018 before the Tribunal challenging prescription of qualification of Bachelor’s Degree in Marathi/Sanskrit, as well as, seeking a declaration that she is eligible to be appointed pursuant to her selection. By judgment and order dated 20.02.2019, the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application hol

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top